Toby Harnden was the Daily Telegraph's US Editor, based in Washington DC, from 2006 to 2011. Click here for Toby's website. Follow him on Twitter here @tobyharnden and on Facebook here. He is the author of the bestselling book Dead Men Risen: The Welsh Guards and the Defining Story Britain's War in Afghanistan.

Should we copy the US election system?

Yes, I know that this is the land of the permanent campaign (I have visited Iowa this year more times than I care to recall), which must seem crazy to many Brits. Each House of Representatives campaign begins the day after the last one finished. This presidential race effectively started seven months ago and still has another 14 to run.

Hillary the Inevitable

But having a fixed election date (in the US the presidential election is the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November every four years) at least lessens the chances of political shenanigans by the incumbent party over selecting election day. I mean, why should Gordon Brown get to choose in secret and then manipulate Iraq troop withdrawals and who knows what else before springing the opposition with a grand announcement about the big day?

I've an oped piece in today's paper about Hillary Clinton suddenly becoming viewed as Hillary the Inevitable. But this week I've also been following the frenzy back in UK over when the General Election will be called.

And it strikes me as fundamentally undemocratic that the election date should be decided by the incumbent party – and chosen potentially so close to voting day that the other parties are left scrambling and at a significant disadvantage.

Clearly there are pros and cons to both systems. One con of the British system is that it is parties rather than the people who choose party leaders, and therefore the candidates for Prime Minister.

Yes, UK party members play a major role in the leadership selection but that is hardly as democratic as the US system of registered voters taking part in primaries and caucuses.

Another is that UK election campaigns are so short that candidates do not have to undergo the intense scrutiny that US candidates face.

And the fact that the Prime Minister is the head of the legislature as well as the executive results in a potentially dangerous concentration of power.

Of course, it's much easier to dump an unpopular or errant Prime Minister than it is a President (who, as Bill Clinton found out, it is very difficult to remove from office). But then again, it is the parliamentary party and not the people that acts in this circumstance – thus, it was Conservative MPs who removed Margaret Thatcher rather than the electorate.

Cons of the US system? The weird power that unrepresentative places like Iowa and New Hampshire wield. The sheer length of the modern campaigns.

And the colossal amounts of cash candidates need to raise (though campaign contributions are rightly categorised as free speech and it is certainly an effective way of sorting out who is viable and who is not).

No doubt during the UK election campaign – whenever it starts – we'll be hearing a lot from Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Menzies Campbell about taking power away from party spin doctors and giving it back to the people etc etc.

But how about doing something really radical and agreeing to a fixed term of office for whoever wins?